From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael Thu Feb 20 15:19:56 EST 1992
Article 3645 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael
>From: michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar)
Subject: Re: MUST Philosopy be a Waste of Time?
Message-ID: <1992Feb11.181021.13048@psych.toronto.edu>
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <1992Feb04.060419.21963@convex.com> <1992Feb05.011716.8427@norton.com> <403@tdatirv.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1992 18:10:21 GMT

In article <403@tdatirv.UUCP> sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>In article <1992Feb05.011716.8427@norton.com> brian@norton.com (Brian Yoder) writes:
>|
>|Why should I care what 51% of philosophers think?  I disagree with 51% of
>|philosophers on a great many issues.  Does that make me wrong about them
>|simply because of the fact?  51% of philosophers once thought that there were 
>|only four elements.  Is that a reason to believe them to be correct?
>
>Great example!
>
>Not only did more than 51% of philosphers believe there were only four
>elements, but they seemed quite willing to go right on believing that.
>[After all they had accepted it for thousands of years].
>
>It took the experimental results of a group of 'natural philosophers', or
>as we would call them today, scientists, to change that belief.  And even
>then it took considerble evidence that was inconsistant with only four
>elements before it was thoroughly rejected.
>
>This is why I do not accept *anything* said by a philosopher that does not
>have at least *some* observational basis.
>
>I would pay more attention to one scientist than any number of philosophers.

But how would you know what was being done was *science* without philosophers
to lay the ground rules???  On what basis do you believe that "observation"
leads to truth, if not for a philosophical position which asserted this? 

Any definition of what science is involves at least implicit philosophical
premises.  If you believe otherwise, you're simply fooling yourself...

- michael




